Jump to content

SL body with dx sensor


tom0511

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I read many people wishing to have smaller lenses for the SL.

 

If I see how good image quality is possible to achieve with the TL-sensor: 

Wouldnt it be great if Leica offered the SL-body with a dx-sized 24MP sensor inside, so one could shoot the TL lenses and get full resolution images with the speed and EVF of the SL? Something like a Nikon D500 from Leica.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have a high resolution version with a 1.5x crop mode to achieve the same effect.

 

It would be more like the D810/D850 than the D500.

I'd absolutely love this.

 

To the OP: There is an upcoming new Leica with the code name "Clooney" said to be precisely this. Have a look at the eaqually named discussion in the TL subforum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would rather have a high resolution version with a 1.5x crop mode to achieve the same effect.

 

It would be more like the D810/D850 than the D500.

 

This would be absolutly great IMO. Having a FF 42MP, which can be used as a compact 20MP camera with the TL lenses. Even better idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be absolutly great IMO. Having a FF 42MP, which can be used as a compact 20MP camera with the TL lenses. Even better idea.

Yes and it would act like a built in teleconverter for the native SL lenses since you would be cropping down to similar resolution to that offered by the current SL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I like the SL because I can use FF lenses with it. Almost any lens from almost any manufacturer.

I have several other (older) cameras where I can use all sorts of DX or APS-C lenses. 

You can also buy the TL2 for that - why don't you ?

Olympus, Sony, Fuji, ... you name it   have models for that - just buy them.

In my experience the DX lenses were always far inferior to the FF lenses - maybe you feel the TL lenses are better. But I do not want to go in that direction. (Too expensive compared to other dx lenses)

 

I hope the SL will stay FF. If not it is worthless for me.

About the next step - why should it be 42 MP ?  Any thing up to 80 MP is easily imaginable - as long as the rest of the camera is not too slow.

The technology of the TL2 sensor used on FF would already result in 54 MP.

 

I wish for smaller FF lenses - exactly like the 3 primes that are coming soon. Not for poor DX quality.

 

How clever is that - starting with a high-priced FF model. Then change in the middle to the much cheaper DX model - so that the price for the FF lenses is total overkill.  REALLY CLEVER !!

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology of the TL2 sensor used on FF would already result in 54 MP.

 

This would be so wonderful. But they won't do it because common sense thinks 24mp to be some kind of a "sweet spot" between file size, processor speed and resolution. Which is plain nonsense looking at todays CPUs, SSDs or even a simple 6TB 150 $ software raid.

 

Second reason of course is the S. But is there really a market for MF in the future, apart from showing off in fashion photography? I mean, how long can a system like that be kept alive artificially?

 

Let's face it: APSC is the new Full Frame. And Full Frame should be the new MF. unfortunately, right now it is artificially capped in resolution.

 

If they don't give us more resolution, most of us will end up asking ourselves why we are spending so much money on so heavy equipment with the same resulting IQ as APSC. Overgaard already wrote he sees no difference in  IQ between his M and his TL2. Right now, if you're not excessively after a shallow DoF, you're just waisting money and lugging around unnecessary weight with full frame.

 

Having said this, I'll happily return to my SL, hoping for two things: A mini-SL-Clooney. And a 50 mp SL2.

Edited by Lazytiger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I like the SL because I can use FF lenses with it. Almost any lens from almost any manufacturer.

I have several other (older) cameras where I can use all sorts of DX or APS-C lenses. 

You can also buy the TL2 for that - why don't you ?

Olympus, Sony, Fuji, ... you name it   have models for that - just buy them.

In my experience the DX lenses were always far inferior to the FF lenses - maybe you feel the TL lenses are better. But I do not want to go in that direction. (Too expensive compared to other dx lenses)

 

I hope the SL will stay FF. If not it is worthless for me.

About the next step - why should it be 42 MP ?  Any thing up to 80 MP is easily imaginable - as long as the rest of the camera is not too slow.

The technology of the TL2 sensor used on FF would already result in 54 MP.

 

I wish for smaller FF lenses - exactly like the 3 primes that are coming soon. Not for poor DX quality.

 

How clever is that - starting with a high-priced FF model. Then change in the middle to the much cheaper DX model - so that the price for the FF lenses is total overkill.  REALLY CLEVER !!

 

Hi, I was not talking about replacing the SL with a dx camera but to expand the great SL FF body by a "light" dx model.

I believe it would be indeed really clever to  share all the R&D cost and use this excellent body for both, a FF camera and an SL-oriented dx camera.

 

But maybe its too risky for Leica, because many users might be so happy with the DX-IQ that they wouldnt buy the more expensive FF SL lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at this in perspective, Leica remains committed to the M system; it has invested a lot in the L mount, and I suspect would like the TL and SL cameras to overtake the M system as its major seller.

 

We know from previous comments from Leica that the TL is an important camera for the company.

 

How would an M sized, L mount, built in EVF camera fit in the Leica gamut? Full frame or APS-C? Much as the M system has expanded to include monochrome andf MD versions (all with the same body and rangefinder), Leica could expand its L mount cameras to include variants, but that is something they would need to take care over, I'd have thought.

 

The logical camera system to expand would probably be the TL, I guess - same lenses, different body options and perhaps sensor options? Who knows ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a heroic guess, I suggest that 60% of Leica's R&D is going into L-mount systems, 25% into S systems (the problem child: reliability issues and a MF SLR system where the future is mirrorless), 10% into Q alternatives and 5% into the M system (if that).

 

Edit: If I could allocate more than 100%, I think it would be in R&D in human interfaces: whatever led from the S to the SL to the TL2.

 

Edit 2: whatever work is needed to produce M variations (e.g. the MD and Lenny Kravitz models) will come from the marketing budget, not R&D.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

This would be so wonderful. But they won't do it because common sense thinks 24mp to be some kind of a "sweet spot" between file size, processor speed and resolution. Which is plain nonsense looking at todays CPUs, SSDs or even a simple 6TB 150 $ software raid.

Second reason of course is the S. But is there really a market for MF in the future, apart from showing off in fashion photography? I mean, how long can a system like that be kept alive artificially?

 

Let's face it: APSC is the new Full Frame. And Full Frame should be the new MF. unfortunately, right now it is artificially capped in resolution.

 

If they don't give us more resolution, most of us will end up asking ourselves why we are spending so much money on so heavy equipment with the same resulting IQ as APSC. Overgaard already wrote he sees no difference in  IQ between his M and his TL2. Right now, if you're not excessively after a shallow DoF, you're just waisting money and lugging around unnecessary weight with full frame.

 

Having said this, I'll happily return to my SL, hoping for two things: A mini-SL-Clooney. And a 50 mp SL2.

24MP is not a sweet spot for your post processing, it's a sweet spot for on-camera processing. It of course will be surpassed as time moves along, but for some time the fastest performing cameras have topped out at 24 MP or less. It's about bandwidth, buffer, etc.

 

I would welcome a FF SL2 with higher resolution so long as the camera remained top of the line in speed. To achieve high fps a crop mode could potentially lower the bandwidth requirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd welcome both a high res SL and a smaller DX version. However........

 

Anyone who thinks the TL2 matches the M10 or that the M10 matches the S is kidding themselves. They may not need the difference in IQ. There may be scenes where the difference isn't apparent. But it's there, if you need it.

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

... Anyone who thinks the TL2 matches the M10 or that the M10 matches the S is kidding themselves. They may not need the difference in IQ. There may be scenes where the difference isn't apparent. But it's there, if you need it...

 

 

Hi Gordon,

 

I assume you're referring to the benefit of larger pixel sites, over a larger image?  The reason I ask is, if we take the SL, M10 and TL2, all are 24MP, all use the same Maestro II processor and presumably are processed with getting the best IQ from the sensor as a priority.  The differences are, the TL2 has an APS-C sensor (which means the pixel sites are smaller, resulting in an 8 micron circle of confusion), the SL & M10 sensors have larger pixel sites (12 micron circle of confusion), and the M10 has M lens specific micro lenses.

 

If the same lens is mounted on all three, there will therefore be a difference in depth of field (from the difference circles of confusion) and field of view (from the smaller sensor), but why would the image quality be different in any real sense?

 

Similarly with the S (though there are too many variables), a 37.5MP sensor also with a 12 micron circle of confusion and Maestro II processor, surely the advantage you're getting is the superior S lenses?

 

I guess what I'm trying to come to grips with is, in digital, as resolution improves, what are you gaining with larger sensors?  Depth of field is strictly a factor of circle of confusion and focal length (for a given field of view).  Surely, we can assume that all the sensors - TL2's APS-C, M10 & SL full frame and S medium format - deliver similar image qualities ...

 

Am I missing something?

 

Cheers

John 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gordon,

 

I assume you're referring to the benefit of larger pixel sites, over a larger image?  The reason I ask is, if we take the SL, M10 and TL2, all are 24MP, all use the same Maestro II processor and presumably are processed with getting the best IQ from the sensor as a priority.  The differences are, the TL2 has an APS-C sensor (which means the pixel sites are smaller, resulting in an 8 micron circle of confusion), the SL & M10 sensors have larger pixel sites (12 micron circle of confusion), and the M10 has M lens specific micro lenses.

 

If the same lens is mounted on all three, there will therefore be a difference in depth of field (from the difference circles of confusion) and field of view (from the smaller sensor), but why would the image quality be different in any real sense?

 

Similarly with the S (though there are too many variables), a 37.5MP sensor also with a 12 micron circle of confusion and Maestro II processor, surely the advantage you're getting is the superior S lenses?

 

I guess what I'm trying to come to grips with is, in digital, as resolution improves, what are you gaining with larger sensors?  Depth of field is strictly a factor of circle of confusion and focal length (for a given field of view).  Surely, we can assume that all the sensors - TL2's APS-C, M10 & SL full frame and S medium format - deliver similar image qualities ...

 

Am I missing something?

 

Cheers

John

 

Firstly, none of these cameras have less than great sensors. If you can't get an image from them it's not the cameras fault.

 

The difference is as it always has been. All things being equal a larger sensor has more DR and less noise. 95% of the time it probably doesn't matter but when you reach the limits of what a sensor can capture the M10 sensor is more malliiable than the TL2 and the S is more malliable than the M10. When you really agressively push those pixels around in LR or whatever the S sensor falls apart way later than the smaller sensors.

 

Every new sensor generation improves on the last and the M10 has more DR than the type 240. The TL2 is very close to what the type 240 can do in DR and noise control. But the M10 is also a newer sensor. And its larger photosites count when the file is pushed and prodded. The S007 is better again. The X1D/GFX/645Z is a bit better again. A 100MP full MF sensor will have more DR again. It's not about resolution or DOF.

 

Does it matter? Not always. I've left all my Leicas at home while I take a PenF on holidays with my kids.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

interesting discussion. I also use m43, dx, ff and 30x45mm sensor systems.

What I do see is certainly a lot of DR and very smooth tonal transitions from the S007 sensor. You can see it in the highlight roll off, but also in a wide range of midtones.

I also believe the S to be ahead in regards of color.

I find the IQ difference between dx and ff less obvious than that between FF and 30x45, but I think its not only sensor size but also lenses.

 

Then there is noise differences, but we also have to keep in mind that for the same FOV with the same DOF we can shoot smaller sensor with wider apartures, and newer sensors have become very good at higher ISOs. The TL2 sensor is an excellent example.

 

And then we have other factors besides IQ, for example even I like to use viewfinders most of the time, I have shot quite some refreshing images from the hip or holding the camera with one arm and shooting from different perspectives. AF and face detection can help a lot here.

 

With improved sensors, and excellent dx lenses I think today it can deliver IQ which 6 years ago was not possible. I also find dx can be a very nice compromise, more dof than larger sensors, but still enough room for shallow dof (compared to m43). And a good compromise between size/price and IQ.

 

The M is an alltime classic and the user interface is great, but also it is limited to a certain kind of photography, for example longer focal length are not much fine to use on the M.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone cares, the 35 Summilux-TL has tons of purple fringing wide open, the 50 Summilux-SL almost none. The TL and its lenses are made for consumers no matter how good the sensor gets.

 

It's obvious that the T/TL are aimed at the 'non-enthusiast' market. A camera to appeal to people who don't like cameras in a way (the iphone styling and interface etc).

 

However I have said for ages that Leica could (should) offer a world class 'pro' spec APS-C system, which would appeal to a wide range of users. Maybe, just maybe, the 'Clooney' is a step in that direction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

24MP is not a sweet spot for your post processing, it's a sweet spot for on-camera processing. It of course will be surpassed as time moves along, but for some time the fastest performing cameras have topped out at 24 MP or less. It's about bandwidth, buffer, etc..

This is true, though I hear most people referring to 24mp being ideal when speaking about post processing and disk space. Unfortunately camera speed is one of those marketing gimmicks most of us never use. So far I used those 11 fps only once since I own my SL and it was a very special job. Personally, I'd gladly rent a Nikon for an occasion like that if I'd get a 50mp SL2 in return.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean like this ?

 

 

"EOS 5DS / EOS 5DS R Replacement:

 
  • Working prototypes are currently being tested.
  • The “5DS” series will be amalgamated into a single camera.
  • No low pass filter.
  • All new 60.1mp image sensor.
  • A new type of low megapixel mode.
  • 4K video (video features will be basic)
  • Identical body to the EOS 5D Mark IV."
 

I would rather have a high resolution version with a 1.5x crop mode to achieve the same effect.

It would be more like the D810/D850 than the D500.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...